no to all of these answers! especially madlib's!
social war is a concept taken from foucault that sounds cool and definitely lends itself to grandiose rhetoric, but it has little to do with what we are actually trying to accomplish
the snippet that dot quoted from occupy everything is basically right: "Social war is the discrete and ongoing struggle that runs through and negotiates our lived experience" although I don't think their proposal of 'making it overt' is very helpful at all. social war is just a way of conceptualizing the struggles that are always going on. attempting to publicize them as some kind of unified phenomenon is not necessarily going to give us any new resources -- in fact it risks just making them more legible, easier to police.
here is a quote from society must be defended:
"Its [war's] role is no longer to constitute history but to protect and preserve society; war is no longer a condition of existence for society and political relations, but the precondition for its survival in its political relations. At this point, we see the emergence of the idea of an internal war that defends society against threats born of and in its own body. The idea of social war makes, if you like, a great retreat from the historical to the biological, from the constituent to the medical.”
so I think foucault is clearly not promoting some notion of 'expanded class war' in which we all must battle against 'internalized hierarchies' or whatever. he is doing what he always does -- studying power as a productive force. of course for every type of control there is also inevitably going to be some type of resistance, but I think the whole point of the anarchist project is that we are not satisfied with the forms of resistance that are already always happening, right?
this is my own not very good transcription of part of the talk by the invisible committee that was on tcn radio (it helps I think if you subvocalize this with a haughty french accent)
"There is a war, a civil war, that is permanent and global. Two things prevent us from identifying it, from perceiving it: first, that the denial of the very fact of confrontation is still a part of this confrontation. Then, that despite all the new () of all the new ... specialists, the meaning of this war is not understood. Everything that is said about the asymmetric shape of the so-called new wars only adds to the confusion. The ongoing war of which we speak doesn't have the Napoleonic magnificence of regular wars between two great armies of men, between two antagonistic classes. Because there is an asymmetry in the confrontation, it is less between the forces present than over the very definition of the war itself.
That is why we can't talk about social war. Because the social war is the war that is led against us, it cannot, symmetrically, describe the war that we wage from our side. We have to think again the words themselves in order to forge new concepts, as weapons..."